Send me an Angel … Send me an Angel … Right Now: 

.

.

---

.

A Certain Shade of Grey [Posted initially on 03rd Decemberr 2022]: In the last post, we discussed some aspects of masonic rituals centred on the Masonic initiations in the Master Mason degree. In the understanding, candidates are taken into the symbolic death of Hiram Abiff. Hiram, the architect of King Solomon’s Temple, also possesses the “Master’s word,” one of the secrets of a Master Mason. Unfortunately, he has a run-in with three ruffians, which would end Hiram’s life. He was buried, then moved and reburied under an acacia tree, and later on, was found by workers. A memorial was erected for him for the loss of the genuine secrets of the master mason; a ritual is founded here, though it’s strange considering the Solomon’s Temple, according to Biblical accounts, Solomon’s Temple had been finished. It’s safe to say the symbolic meaning is not literal, and we’ve established its connections with Osiris.

Before we knew what the “word” was, Hiram represented consciousness; as he was buried, so did our consciousness and the imagination that came with it. W.L. Wilmshurst states, “The grave of Hiram is ourselves; we are the grave of the Master—the lost guiding light is buried at the centre of ourselves.” Hiram represents the higher consciousness that can build the Temple—the complete, integrated Self.  

Our imagination was buried when the world spiritual order, a.k.a New World Order enterprise, injected its symbolic iconography of spheres into the forefront of our imaginal understanding. We must climb out of our symbolic grave to complete the Temple and find our integrated selves. Doing so, or flattening the earth, is a step towards that. It’s inherently more advantageous for protestant Christians as the whole motive of a heliocentric idea was to slow down a protestant movement in Europe. There is a sneaky prediction that if they can garner more acceptances for this abstract, they can reinvigorate a five centuries-old movement. 

However, they follow the same patterns as Evangelicals with proof-texting when they base morality with half a sentence only in this regard, a protestant revival as a reaction to a heliocentric sorcery by the Jesuits. For example, Newton’s works are now only regulated by a specific moment of clarity that brought forth gravity. Furthermore, it implies that his moment of clarity is false. Instead, Newton took inspiration from Hermes in his description of the sun transcribed from the emerald tablets. “Its [the sun’s] force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing” – Hermes. You can equate this to gravity, but it’s more ambiguous than that. It’s a weak comparative claim. Protestants set up this claim as a subtext for magical philosophical disdain. For the hermetic axiom “as above so below,” to them, it’s a satanic proposition and, therefore, the whole of hermeticism.      

Protestantism was never abolished, and there has been an anti-Catholic sentiment within conservative Protestants in the first place as a reactionary inheritance of their European counterpart. It’s in the conservative Christian conspiracy sect that imparts the importance of an ethical ideal regarding a unified monotheistic framework. It would seem that this ideal should only favour their type of Christian ethical monotheistic worldview, not a Catholic one since there is already a Christian monotheistic framework. Their whole anti-sentiment ironically goes against monotheism itself. If they ever adopt a flattening earth movement, they’re also advocating for old gods to awake or at least acknowledge angelic worship [good or bad] comes with the territory.      

This stems from a conspiratorial idea that Catholicism [or its institutional managers] doesn’t truly uphold a Christian belief. It secretly worships pagan gods or fallen angelic deities behind its Christian iconography. [There is merit to this, given the vast amount of conspiratorial evidence]. However, it’s more about a hyper-focus on one side of the polarity, the conceptualization of the ‘all good, all-knowing’ to bring heaven down to earth and ignore chaos inherent to our dual nature. Whether dualism dissolves the higher, you raise your conception of good and evil into oneness – I’m not qualified to answer this [at a deeper level] as it raises more ethical questions. But, once you view evil as chaos, synonymous with the underworld that one must climb out of, this understanding would require a reintegration of self and is really what most people can grasp or relate to. This is similar to Jung’s concept of integrating the shadow side.  

The Old Testament gods are neither intelligent nor ethically good, even though they are supposed to have created a morally superior system. The Gnostics do not deny that evil exists but are made aware that the characteristics of the creator-God are always doing things incompatible with knowledge. That upon creation, something went wrong. So it means the higher you raise the conception of good and evil within an oneness philosophy, it would go back to relativism arguments if creation weren’t perfect, to begin with. The Gnostics see this imperfect world in conjunction with the perfect upper Pleroma, and this is your soul’s spiritual aim, the upper Pleroma.    

I once mentioned that the satellite cosmos might be the last false ideological stronghold, and if it breaks down completely, you’re only left with sets of belief systems that are more overt and in plain sight. Instead, they are cleverly hidden and in secret. The latter [satellization cosmos] is one type of secular framework that depowers fallen angel worship because the collective intent has no full potential. You only need to remove the satellized sorcery aspect and reinvoke the original cosmos.     

Otherwise, another theocratic empire with a new zeal for disenchanting a false cosmos would grow. And it would also be a fundamentalist movement, granted every religion has a form of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is more of a style, and Gnostic groups of their time were reactionary [meaning Gnostics were the fundamentalist of their time]. So I mean reactive movements that are more socially and theologically strict, like Evangelicalism. Because Evangelicalism is a Christian identity rather than a denomination, their conceptual level and understanding of Christianity is more distant, but I also suggest ideologically. The distance factor allowed them to redefine spiritual experiences to an inclusive framework of ‘born again’ spiritual experiences that differ from other awakening spiritual impulses because it’s also an emotional conversion in accepting Jesus Christ as their saviour.     

Not only in the acceptance but also in an interactive sense of God’s presence [God personally communicates with them]. Alongside proselytizing or evangelizing candidates so they can be born again. Fundamentalism is propelled further into the extreme scale when biblical inerrancy [God’s divine words] must be seen without error. However, not all follow this doctrinal purity but still hold the Bible as authoritative. Almost all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.  

Evangelicals shared a common idea with the conservatives [new/neo-conservatives] about the United States being led down the path of ruin through Liberalism that started after the Vietnam War. Evangelicals saw this decline through the ruling class abandoning Biblical values in favour of a destructive doctrine they called ‘secular humanism.’ They agreed with the neo-conservatives about poverty, crime, drugs, the Soviet Union, etc. However, included was a focus on the breakdown of Biblically ordained family structures – and also a disdain for feminism, the legalization of abortion, and a general increase in secularization. Most American Christians are not evangelical Christians, and only 17 per cent [white] Americans are Evangelicals. This small minority had a strong influence in politics that started with Reagan, where an Evangelical and Republican alliance would ensue – a successful pairing because of their loyalties to leaders and their motivation to vote as a religious obligation.

In the latter part of the 80s, Evangelicals, with their broad reach through televangelising, went through scandals. Some of their Evangelical leaders were against what they preached, especially about Biblically ordained family structures [hey, blame it on the sirens]. Most of their funding came through donations, the kinds of donations that were able to fund an evangelical theme park.

The Reagan era also prompted a Christian conspiracy theory culture, starting with talk-back radio and then drifting to early internet chat forums. Where they borrowed evangelicals’ and neo-conservatives’ dislike [not just about Liberalism], but the government itself and their ruling class fundamentally threatening the beliefs and traditions of the American family. The conspiratorial side has some dismay with the government; however, confusingly, most conspiracy-theory mouthpieces alongside evangelicals and neo-conservatives accept their reason for war. And that the Holy Land [Jerusalem] needs to be reclaimed, certain events must come to pass, as stated in the book of Revelation, to hasten the second coming. It must match Biblical revelation’s mandate and any precursor event for the second coming and apocalypse. This makes the Evangelical Right indistinguishable from Christian Zionism, which is favoured more among Republicans. 

Evangelicals certainly didn’t spearhead their complex values. It seemed to just align or overlap with a growing conservative secular ideal in the first place backed by media like Fox News and magazines like National Review [and X-files]. They gave a religious rationalisation that most conservatives may have wanted anyway. At the same time, they can’t mature out of their apocalyptic thinking, contributing to the collapse of civilisation, which is also incongruent with being born again spiritually. However, they set the criterion of religious dogma acting like a map, like an immovable pillar. So when something like a memetic virus [wokeism] would inevitably come around, they repelled it, and it couldn’t have its effect.

They succeeded in the Political arena but lost in the cultural area [and this is due to imagination being stifled]. And now they see themselves as minoritarian. They’ve given up the dream that their worldview can meld with the mainstream American perspective. Even so, their firm stance on policy and low-key scepticism of a ruling-class government would generate a reactionary Christian-conspiracy-theory culture. At the same time, the reactionary majority blame the left as a way to tunnel a type of propaganda [radicalism] into a kind of scapegoating – probably as a way to circumvent their prominent part in the rise of totalitarianism. Which had its ascendency post-911 in the Bush era – the 911 event lifted the veil overtly.

There is always this implied assertion when [traditional and new] Christian-conspiracy-fundamentalists decree a Masonic conspiracy that their Christian institution is somehow separate from that supposed agenda. [Or maybe they’re creating a memetic spell based on ignorance to wash away guilt or sin]. There was a time when evangelical Christianity made a formidable bid to displace Freemasonry. It never came to pass because Trinitarian Joachimism became the principal theoretical instrument for Masonic policy triumphing in the new world. This came about through the foundation of Mormon Freemasonry, focusing on a secularised irenic inaugural leadership within a complex of social institutions and voluntary societies that preserved progressive American civic piety. Mormon Temple rituals, alongside Joachimite’s political inaugural aspects, are symbolically rooted in Royal Arch exaltation.       

The Book of Revelation is an occult document to the dismay of Christian-Conspiracy-fundamentalists who identify occultism with Evangelicalism as a generalised doctrine of demons. It means to advocate the book of Revelation; you must also accept it as an occult scripture. There are coded meaning embedded in it, meaning you can’t take it at surface value. It’s an allegory or a parable with coded messages – perhaps by initiates of mystery cults at the time. It could also be a story to pass on certain information to people with occult knowledge. It is essential because it misses the point when people take it literally. And this often happens with the Bible and other texts from other religions, and people act out that incorrect worldview as one hundred per cent authentic.

Having that in mind, the apocalypse [the second coming and reclaiming of the Holy Land]  might not be literal; it’s less about the end of the world and more about the battle of good and evil that occurs at the heart of every human being. Which is more about the enlightenment process, and this can be apocalyptic in the sense that it destroys what reality is. The second coming of Christ probably means the enlightenment experienced by the individual practitioner; the Christ/Christos energy is born within their own body. And this differs from a born-again proposition as it has an exclusive wall.

Demonic Thought Forms:  We determined that Heliocentrcisim was a Jesuit enterprise first before Freemasonry joined in the cosmic misdirection operation. To clarify, the Enlightenment thinkers [most likely in the Rosicrucian Enlightenment sect] birthed modern [hyperreal] science like heliocentricism, which came from an esoteric impulse. And for a brief period [in my speculation], became or morphed into the Illuminati, another Rosicrucian order [that differed or did not share their brother’s ideology but still helped with the heliocentric concept], a group that didn’t last the eighteenth century. They were supposed to be a counter-reaction to the Jesuit order but may have been co-opted by the Rosicrucian Enlightenment.    

Freemasonry has long been known to historians for its capacity to influence public affairs. Until recently, however, this was thought to be a general shaping of society by individuals impressed with its core principles of liberty and equality – the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. With dwindling and ageing membership, Masonry stands a possible future where it’s nothing more than a repository of esoteric knowledge. While Rosicrucian’s offspring, Theosophy is not a system of thought endowed by a deity; rather, it’s Divine Wisdom within us. Theosophy is a way of answering life’s “big” questions by trying to reconcile the varied approaches of science, philosophy, and religion without limiting themselves to their particular assumptions or ways. Instead, it relies on personages of intuitions and spiritual ecstasy while embracing all that is true and valuable in other approaches.

Having established Masonry and Theosophy’s seemingly innocent business model statements, there is still the same conspiratorial focus of fallen angelic worship behind their seemingly innocent synopses. And this is due to the seriousness of Secret-[State]-Cults’ use of Star Magic. This makes it a complex area to parse; I think there needs to be a separation between angelic worship [watcher cults] and what Chaos is or hellish things in a philosophical and psychological sense. This is because it touches upon a larger philosophical argument – an argument that halters [or reimagines] oneness philosophy about the nature of the phenomenon.

We have these conscious experiences of colour and the shape of tactile pressure, but these phenomena are not the ultimate causes; Kant [a philosopher] was convinced that there was something beyond that. This is reasonable because we don’t control our phenomenon; something out there is generating these sense perceptions and giving them to us. On a synchronistic level, people started having internal relationships with how the logos unfolded. They began to see patterns in how things can unfold and make sense and realise that those patterns had meaning to their reality. Consciousness of reality and reality itself is a co-creating relationship between the symbols that are known to us and the relationship between the subjective and the objective. And there is applied animism, where it’s more intuitive than symbolic. While all of these questions are about the natural aspects and phenomena of the environment, the same must be said for spiritual and paranormal activities [what we call contact].

John Dee, who had links to Rosicrucianism, was an individual the Masons admired since his whole shtick was about Enochian magic. He was inspired by the same memetic and complexity of ideas that we call Christian-Zionism [pre-apocalyptic millenarianism dispensationalism]—had constant contact with angelic beings, and just exactly what kind of Angels were he in contact with? He was famous for his scrying sessions, and at times, he got to a point where he and his colleague would make contact outside of the crystal, meaning contact with angel beings in the physical environment.

John Dee and Kelley moved from London to Prague and tried to convince the Holy Roman Emperor to get on board with what the angels wanted: to help them bring about this new world order and this apocalypse. Weirdly, it angered the Catholic Church, and so the Jesuits tried to trick them into coming to Rome, where they would’ve been tortured and killed. Angels then told them to take all the records of the scrying sessions and destroy them in the fireplace [21 leather-bound books]. So they did, and the Jesuits could not get hold of the records; after they moved on, Kelley was in the house’s garden. I saw an angel moving in the garden with its feet hovering off the ground, and the angel led Kelley up the stairs to the fireplace, where they burnt the documents. Upon their report of seeing a door of light opened at the back of the fireplace, a hand comes out of the door of light and hands them back the destroyed books.     

Whether you believe this story or not, they are projections, a tale that seems to slide between non-fiction and fiction with supernatural experiences of dark entities, angels, etc. They are stories that line up with modern-day fear of external governmental agencies, the Illuminati and Freemasonry with secret conspiracies behind the scenes. That people are out there to get us alongside entities of the spiritual world. The conspiracy is real, but it’s also a demonic thought form and is not an external entity but rather something that is projected inside of us outwards – our fear of that makes it real. Human consciousness allows us to have infinite choices and experiences, and the way of Sharman understands that it’s your choice; you can shift your attention, expertise, or focus, which is true magic, which tends to be what you end up experiencing.   

The Transcendence of Evil: The conspiracy is real but has to whirl between conspiracy and conspiracy theory, so it’s a battle between the two at a propositional level. And both are required to get a resemblance of truth because it’s carried in propositions and results in beliefs, which does not know that. What if you manifest a conspiracy theory that is not true but becomes a conspiracy theory? Due to the misreading of Derrida and Foucault and by attributing them to the claim that the ‘power’ they identify is the central spirit. In other words, into a Satanic adversary, but merely a modified Marxist claim directed through a specific subset of post-war philosophy [post-structuralism, deconstruction] in postmodernism [now neo-Marxist].   

Having been proven wrong and insisting their misinformation is fundamental to the public and not retracting the false claim is an attempt to validate a false conspiracy theory, which becomes a [unintentional] fundamentalist claim and a demonic thought-form. Derrida and Foucault looked at platonic idealism, a.k.a; the philosophy of Plato and Christian meta-physics led to the hierarchy tendency of philosophy. Truth is a vertical journey that starts from the propositional as it moves towards the procedural, then the perspectival, and participatory. Building on this – both were interested in how they used idealism and Christian logic to make absolute claims, like truth and power.         

The acquisition of power was not what Derrida and Foucault were concerned about; to an extent, the analysis of the way power functions and how it functions in society was important to them. Derrida talks about power; however, his method of deconstruction is not a method of gaining power but about undermining claims to constant knowledge – or problematizing trends of acquiring knowledge in Western philosophy. Likewise, Foucault’s work on genealogical history was not about how to gain power; he looked at how power has been used, abused and modified throughout history.

Our relationship to power and the criterion for realness should be appropriately acknowledged rather than made absolute or set up as antithesis. We’ve mentioned the confusion in the order of abstraction in general semantics. When one identifies the word with the label, there is confusion when the label stands for the image or the ‘thing itself – ‘the map is not the territory.’ We can’t capture the relevance of our proposition within the syntax or the semantics of the propositions; that’s the main thing Derrida was about.      

The claim that power is a fundamental reality or culture is about the claim that the drive to power is at the core of Western beings. It is an equally nihilistic claim; it attempts to heal the wound of nihilism but is fundamentally mistaken in its endeavour. It constitutes the wrong way or framing the problem the wrong way. So, you don’t get insight into the solution rooted in the problem. 

Derrida was critical of elements of Western civilisations the same way any philosopher would be – a big part of doing philosophy is looking back historically on the traditions and critically modifying previous assumptions. Descartes [I think therefore I am] developed his form of rationalism, which involved criticising previous assumptions of Western subjectivity – that go back to Plato or Aristotle. It doesn’t mean Descartes is an enemy of Western philosophy; it just means he engages with that tradition. His re-articulation of classical philosophical questions in his era and Derrida’s method [deconstruction] aim for an internal critique, looking for a critique internal to the text itself. Derrida and Foucault wanted to push philosophy beyond a traditionalist, Platonist paradigm and search for a more just and democratic thought.    

To suggest Western governments and universities worldwide are being influenced by people who are followers of Derrida and Foucault [a subset of postmodernism] – a satellited version of postmodernism, a leftist golem. Postmodernism had been framed wrongly. There is no evidence for this, but it’s evident that a particular subset of postmodernism is being used as a strawman, which gives the sorcerer a type of lefty intellectual bogyman to fight against. Essentially, profiteering from the ignorant has such an effect. You even have synchro-mystics proclaiming a notion of post-postmodernism, which there is no need for since the proposition was incorrect to begin with. More evidence suggests that woke-isim and identity politics emerged from the new-atheist movements rather than postmodernism. 

However, in that they’re made aware of their mistakes – there is still the symptomatic problem, and it’s something more profound, more mystical, and, in terms of ages, longer. And it feeds off things like polarised, Hegelian, and dual conflicts. Some call it an Egregore, but it is closer to Steiner’s notion of a cosmic being called Ahriman. Steiner examined that Superstition science [or scientific superstitions] was the illusion and means employed by Ahriman. Humans and their different groups are at odds with each other, as seen in our modern-day political arena. [“These Ahrimanic powers are at work wherever disharmonies between groups’ people arise” – Steiner]. Ordered-liberty-conservative-intellects have done equal damage by miss-framing postmodernism. So there is validation in making aware of the memetic virus [wokeisim] arising [they’re just finger-pointing in the wrong direction], but in doing so, given manifestation to a demon of their own. 

These Ahrimanic powers are at work wherever disharmonies between groups of people arise, but let’s take a very characteristic example to show what most of these things are based upon. Our modern proletariat now looks to Karl Marx; it is worth studying how the teachings of Karl Marx spread among the modern proletariat and how they gave rise to a never-ending flood of Marxist literature. This literature fully embraces the scientific mode; everything is rigorously supported with proof and evidence so rigorously, in fact, that one who thought was immune to Marxism has, in fact, succumbed to it. The fate of Marxism was to spread first of all through the proletariat. At the same time, academic institutes disputed it and rejected it, now there are a number of academics who can no longer resist the logic of Marxism. Who acknowledge and can no longer escape it because Marxist literature, as gradually has become apparent, offers subtly congruent conclusions.   With a modern scientific outlook and motive thinking, the propositions of Marxism can be very nicely proven. The middle classes didn’t have their own Karl Marx to prove the opposite, but it would’ve been possible. You see, just as one can prove the ideological character of law, ethics, etc., and the theory of added value and axioms of materialistic history from a Marxist perspective. So, one can prove exactly the opposite of all such things. It would be perfectly possible for bourgeoisie Marx to prove the opposite in the same rigorous way without distortion or underhand aims. Such evidence would certainly stand because modern human thinking and the modern intellect lie in a stratum of our being that prevents us from reaching down to access realities. A similarly rigorous procedure can prove one thing and its opposite equally well.     Today, it is possible with equally valid logic to prove the truth of spiritualism on the one hand and materialism on the other. These conflicting perspectives merge with equal rights because modern intellectualism lives in an upper Stratham of reality and does not plunge into the depths of existence. The same applies to partisan viewpoints of all kinds. If we do not comprehend this, we absorb such things through our upbringing, family through the particular condition we live in, and the politics of the day. We might honestly believe our partisan view is well founded, yet we have just fallen or slipped into it. We find ourselves in conflict with people who likewise slipped into their own partisan position; both oppositions will be equally valid. This brings chaos and confusion over humanity, and the convulsion it causes will continue to increase if humanity does not come to see this. And in this confusion is something that Ahrimanic powers employ again to prepare their triumphed incarnation. – Steiner

.

Steiner was a Theosophy [post-Blavatsky] student in the German branch but divorced himself from it due to a conflict of interest regarding fellow teacher Krishnamurti. However, Steiner showed indifference towards Theosophy itself, as Blavatsky found Christian doctrines inferior to the wisdom of the East. Steiner was intrigued by the concept of ‘the Christ event’ and was also a natural clairvoyant.

We have early signs of esoteric Christianity formulating in Steiner as he continued to work alongside […] and an unnamed intellect to develop concepts of karma and rebirth.

Steiner’s cosmology also corresponds to the Theosophical view, with its aeons-long perspective on the enfoldment of spirit into matter. Steiner gives more emphasis, however, to the role of superhuman evil in the process. He stresses that long before human incarnation on this planet, the Godhead decided that “humanity certainly could have developed well, but could become even stronger if obstacles were put in its way” – Smoley, R.

.

These obstacles have primarily taken the form of two cosmic beings, Lucifer and Ahriman. We discussed Lucifer at length; that is, not Satan. And the whole Luciferin agenda is not accurate in an empirical sense. However, fallen angel worship [watcher cults] exists in secret through a network that spans the state, country, and empire; the evidence is apparent through hoaxes, false flags, rituals, symbology, secret societies, etc. 

Steiner sees Lucifer as the source of pride and is correct to signify Lucifer with pride because, as we established, the supreme lord of light is Samyaza [the angel of pride] – and Ahriman is the name of evil principle as portrayed in Zoroastrianism. Also, by contrast, Ahriman is responsible for our mechanical ingenuity and technical inventions [Ahriman’s technologies]. In a sense, The God of the Machine Ahriman will incarnate [as an anti-Christ archetype] in this century, as prophesied by Steiner.  

In Baudrillard’s fable, our reality exists only as rotting shreds attached to the map; this is the state of our age, according to Baudrillard. So that the model itself is likened to human existence, the real has become irrelevant and undefinable and clings only as vestiges. In a sense, Ahriman is the glue when we cling to the map, and in contrast, Lucifer [Samyaza] would have us leave this world all too soon.  

Neither Lucifer nor Ahriman is adversarial; instead, one feeds off the other in the sense there is a Lucifer of light and false light Lucifer. The Ahriman impulse utilises false light and left brain thinking; now we have Ahriman’s technologies or Ahriman’s artificial intelligence. There is no doubt that the notion of artificial intelligence, where it will come to life as a sentient being with form and a soul, will never be realised. They are often romantic babblings of pseudo-science and the elites who finance them because of their innate fear of the uncertain, judgement or death.     

We have Ahriman incarnating in Ghost in the Shell as project 2501 [Puppet Master], a sentient beyond A.I. intelligence but rather a living thinking entity born in a sea of information. It’s archetypically angelic, and you see the drawings sliding between femineity and masculinity.

.

There is a dichotomy in mainstream science for the evaluation of spirit – and also in the psychological philosophy when discussing the good and the bad spirit. However, that dichotomy can answer what science won’t delve into and how we understand evil. For example, Carl Jung states – in his red book about the boy:

In any form the archetype of the spirit appear in situations he is never 100 percent certain that the spirit figure in dreams are morally good, often they appear not only ambivalent, but dam right malicious, who knows about the great plan, and how much evil is necessary to bring about the good by enantidromia and which good tend to want evil … wait and see.

.

So, on the way to profound and real religious experience, the human being is not simply made with already-made desires and solutions but is …

Confronted with the problem with uncertainty of moral evaluation with the confusing interplay of the good and bad, and the inexorable con-cassanation of guilt, suffering and redemption. And this way is right, but how many can recognize it; it is the old voice sounding from a distance, it is ambiguous, doubtful and dark, and sometimes means danger and risk an uncertain path, one can only take for the sake of by the wheel of God, without security and without sanction.

.

It means the experiences of the non-physical world are different; this can be shown in dreams and visions of our reality. They often involve ambivalent experiences of light and dark interacting in weird ways; this engagement of interacting with spirits is not a series of episodes but a process. Jung divided this process into three: war – magic – and religion. First, war is a conflict between right and left, between the morally acceptable and morally unacceptable and so forth, then magic, a period of transformation, the magical change, then religion, moving into the ultimate source, the god within. 

The psycho-spiritual transformation of the psyche is akin to the enlightenment, which involves contact with light. Moreover, it also touches upon the notion of Henosis [what postmodernists were touching upon]. The summation of the neo-platonic ascent is that the one within you becomes one within, one without until there is only one. The ultimate one-ment and atonement, the ultimate healing of that which is existentially distressing to us, separated from the ground of reality within and without and separating them.

.

.